ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 11,

1985

NASH BROTHERS COMPANY

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 84—182

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.

Flemal):

This matter comes before the Board upon

a petition for

variance from the volatile organic materials emission limitation

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215..204(j)(3)

filed by Nash Brothers Company

(“Nash Brothers”)

on December 21,

1984, and amended February 19,

1985.

Nash Brothers’

amended petition seeks variance until

August

31, 1986,

and requests the Board

allow the same amount of

time for Petitioner’s acquisition of construction and operating

permits.

The Board received

a letter on January 7,

1985,

from

a

resident living near Petitioner’s property who requested that,

due to his concern over

the possible granting

of

a variance

in

this case,

a hearing be held

to determine

if such action would be

in

the

best

interests of the community.

The Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)

filed

its

recommendation on April

23, 1985,

concluding

that variance should

bc conditionally granted

to Nash Brothers.

Hearing was held on

May 24,

1985, and was attended by both parties,

a number

of Nash

Brothers employees, and environmentalist Ms. Gisela Topolski who

initially questioned the variance but who eventually went on

record

at the hearing

in support of granting the requested

variance

to Petitioner.

Nash Brothers has twice waived

the

time

for decision

in this case, most recently until September

2, 1985.

Nash Brothers

is engaged

in the manufacture of engineered

truck bumpers and metal welded truck parts at a plant in Will

County,

Illinois.

Approximately 55 persons are employed at the

facility, which is situated on 12 acres

in a mostly open area 3.5

miles

from the City of Joliet.

Petitioner’s manufacturing

operation consists of transforming flat steel and aluminum into

truck bumpers and parts, forty percent of which are then shipped

out for chrome plating and sixty percent of which receive an

application of primer paint at Nash Brothers’

plant.

Petitioner’s painting process utilizes a flow coat technique

whereby metal parts are moved by an overhead conveyor through an

enclosed booth.

Inside the booth

a series of nozzles spray

streams of primer paint which “flows” over

the passing metal

parts.

The excess paint dripping off the parts drains into a

sink at

the, bottom of the booth,

is filtered and reused.

From

65-29

---

—2—

the painting booth

the parts are conveyed

to

a “flashoff

enclosure”, which operates to evaporate solvent and allow the

paint

to spread evenly over the parts.

After

flashoff

the parts

are then conveyed back

to the plant where

they are packed,

stored, and~shipped.

The impetus

for Petitioner’s variance request

is its

inability to the present time, notwithstanding

the expenditure of

much effort

in good faith,

to maintain emissions of volatile

organic materials

(VOM)

from its plant at or below the level

allowed by Ill. Adm.

Code 215.204(j)(3).

The primer paint and

solvent used by Nash Brothers contain VOM, and emissions occur

during

the spray painting,

flashoff, and drying sequences of

the

production process.

These emissions are vented

to the atmosphere

via

two roof stacks and

an opening on the roof—mounted dryer

oven,

Section 215..204(j)(3)

states that VOM emissions from the

application of extreme performance coatings to miscellaneous

metal parts and products are not to exceed

3.5 lbs/gal (.42

kg/i), excluding water, delivered to the coating applicator.

Petitioner has determined, and the Agency does not dispute,

that

it presently uses approximately 8.6 gallons of primer paint per

hour.

Since Section 215.204(j)(3)

limits VOM emissions

to 3.5

lbs/gal., Nash Brothers

is allowed a VOM emission rate of 30.10

lbs/hr.

However, Petitioner has determined,

and the Agency does

not dispute,

that its actual VOM emission rate

is approximately

39

lbs/hr, almost

9 lbs/hr over that level.

35

Ill. Mm.

Code 215.211(a)

(1) provides that VOM emission

sources subject to Section 215.204(j) were

to be

in compliance

with

the latter

rule by December

31,

1983.

Nash Brothers began

taking

the steps necessary to attain timely compliance well

before

the statutory deadline.

It submitted

a compliance plan

to

the Agency on May 9,

1983, which the Agency approved

on June

9,

1983.

This plan anticipated that compliance would

be achieved

by

the statutory deadline through Nash Brothers’

use of a low

solvent primer manufactured by the W.C. Richards Company.

Nash

Brothers extensively tested this paint, and found that

its use

would bring Petitioner within

the VOM emission limitations

of

Section 2l5.204(j)(3).

However, on December

19, 1983, Nash

Brothers was notified by its paint supplier that this particular

paint, which contained the solvent 1,1,1

trichiorethane, caused

the formation of phosphene gas when vapors from the solvent came

into contact with an open flame.

Nash Brothers was also informed

t~atupon cooling,

the phosphene gas would condense and create

hydrochloric acid.

Both phosphene gas and hydrochloric acid are

toxic

substances.

Upon receipt

of this information, Petitioner

was forced

to halt testing of the paint, which thereby eliminated

any possibility of bringing

its operations

into compliance with

VOM emission limitations by December 31,

1983.

Shortly thereafter, Nash Brothers began testing paints

supplied by three other companies

in the hope of finding one that

would satisfy its requirements.

Tests performed in February,

1984 showed that a water

soluble reducible paint produced by the

65-30

---

—3—

~‘ederatedPaint Company would probably allow Nash

Brothers

Lu

satisfy Section 215.204(j)(3).

However,

this paint was not

able

t~meet customer

specifications,

so testing was halted on

it

in

~1ay,1984.

Testing continued on other paints

until July 16,

1984, when

a fire occurred

in the drying oven’s chamber

causin9 ~

shutdown of Petitioner’s paint operations.

After

repairs were

made

to

the oven, painting and testing resumed

in September,

1984.

On November

8,

1984, another fire occurred

in the chamber

of

the drying oven,

and repair

or replacement

of

the oven was

expected

to be completed in June 1985.

After

the drying oven

returns

to operation, Nash Brothers intends

to resume testing

paints

until

one

is found which will satisfy both Section

215.204(j)(3) and customer specifications.

Following the November

8, 1984 fire,

and at the instigation

of

the Agency,

Nash Brothers filed

its original petition

for

variance from Section 2l5.104(j)(3)

on December

21, 1984.

At

that time Petitioner requested the Board

to grant

it variance

Erom the VOM emission limitation until November

30,

1985,

and

to

extend

to

the same date the time by which Nash Brothers must

obtain construction and operating permits from the Agency.

Nash

Brothers filed

its amended petition for variance on February 19,

1985,

requesting that the Board allow Petitioner

until August

31,

1986,

to attain compliance with Section 2l5.204(j)(3)

and obtain

construction and operating permits from the Agency.

The Agency submitted its recommendation on April

23,

1985,

finding

that variance until August 31,

1986,

is warranted

in this

case as Nash Brothers has demonstrated,

to

the Agency’s

satisfaction, that mandating compliance with Section

215.204(j)(3)

at this time would pose an unreasonable and

arbitrary hardship to the Petitioner.

The Agency would condition

the variance on submittal of quarterly reports

by Nash Brothers

delineating progress made

in achieving compliance with Section

215.204(j)(3), and

on the submittal

by Nash Brothers

to

the

Agency no later than March

1,

1986,

of an alternative plan to

install

the equipment necessary to control Petitioner’s VOM

emissions

if Nash Brothers does not reasonably expect

to achieve

compliance with Section 2l5.204(j)(3)

by August

31,

1986.

The Board

is persuaded that variance

is warranted

in this

case,

and hereby grants Nash Brothers’ petition for variance from

Section 215.204(j)(3), subject

to the conditions outlined

below.

At every step along the way Nash Brothers has diligently

and

in good faith attempted to comply with the VOM emissions

limitation of Section 2l5.204(j)(3), and except

for

a series of

unforeseen setbacks could have probably achieved compliance

several different times over

the past two years.

Condition

“A”

(below)

is intended

to alleviate two concerns

the Board

has

in granting variance from regulatory standards.

First,

there

is

a general concern that a variance not be “open—

ended”,

i.e. allow the holder

of the variance

to emit as large

a

quantity of

a substance as he pleases simply because

he possesses

65-31

---

—4—

a variance.

On

the other hand,

the Board does not wish

to

hinder

Petitioner’s production capabilities by placing

a “cap” on

the

total amount of lbs/hr. of VOM Nash Brothers can emit.By

requiring Petitioner to utilize primer paint having VOM content

less than or equal to those used

in determining Petitioner’s

acutal VOM emission rate to be

39 lbs/hr., both concerns should

be eliminated.

Nash Brothers’ plant

is located

in Will County,

an

attainment area for ozone.

The Board

notes that

it

is aware that

airborne substances, though not the cause of violations

at the

location emitted, can be transported

and ultimately contribute

to

violations observed

in other areas.

However, given the small

volume of VOM Nash Brothers will

be emitting during the variance

period, the anticipated environmental

impact

is small

relative

to

the cost of

immediate compliance.

The Board also concurs with the Agency’s determination that

denial of Nash Brothers’ petition for variance would

result

in an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to Petitioner.

Such denial

of variance relief would force Nash Brothers to presently install

VOM control equipment, which would

be

an unreasonable result

given the possibility of Petitioner successfully reformulating

a

primer paint

and the negligible environmental

impact resulting

Erom Nash Brothers’ VOM emissions.

Since Section 215.204(j)

has not yet been approved

by

the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) as part

of the State Implementation Plan

(SIP), Nash Brothers’

variance

does not have to be submitted to the USEPA as

a revision

to the

Illinois

SIP.

Nevertheless, the Agency has stated that it

believes this variance should be approveable as

a SIP revision,

and will,

therefore,

submit

it as such at such time as USEPA

approves Section 215.204(j),

unless

the variance has already

expired by that time.

Regarding Petitioner’s request

for

an extension of

time to

obtain construction and operating permits from the Agency,

the

processing

of permit requests and the time

frame in which it

is

conducted are wholly matters within the purview of the Agency.

The Board does not perform functions rightfully within Agency

discretion,

and therefore, does not render an opinion on the

issue of the time frame Nash Brothers faces

in obtaining

construction and operating permits.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law

in this matter.

65-32

---

—5—

ORDER

Nash Brothers Company is hereby granted variance from

December 21,

1984 to August 31, 1986

from compliance with 35

Eli.

~dm. Code 215.204(j)(3) subject to

the following conditions:

A.

During

the period of this variance Nash Brothers shall

use primer paint(s) with VOM content less than or equal

to

those used in determining Petitioner’s acutal VOM

emission rate to be

39 lbs/hr.

B.

Nash shall submit quarterly written reports

to the

Agency until August

31, 1986, detailing all progress

made

in achieving compliance with the VOM emission

limitation of 35

Ill. Code 215.204(j)(3).

The first

quarterly report will be due thirty days from the date

of

the Board order granting the variance.

Such reports

shall contain monthly information on the quantity and

solvent content of the primer utilized during

the

reporting period which reflect the impact of

reformulated materials on VOM emissions.

These reports

shall

also describe in detail

the progress made by Nash

to develop a compliant primer during

the proceeding

three months, as well as the projected progress

to be

made

in achieving compliance during

the following

quarter.

The first quarterly report

of 1985 shall

include copies of material data sheets showing

the

composition

(in terms

of percentages of solid,

solvent

and water)

of all primer which will be applied

at the

plant.

All of the above information shall be submitted

to the Agency at the following addresses:

1.

Manager, Permit Section Division of Air Pollution

Control,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706

2.

Manager, Field Operations Sections, Division of Air

Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

1701 South First Avenue, Suite

600,

Maywood,

Illinois 60153

C.

On or before March

1,

1986, Nash shall submit

to

the

Agency at the addresses provided

in Condition A above

a

program to install appropriate control technology which

will

bring

its plant

into compliance with the applicable

VOM emission limitation

if

it does not reasonably expect

to achieve compliance with that emission limitation by

August

31,

1986,

through utilization of low solvent or

water based primer.

The alternative compliance program

shall provide for final compliance with the applicable

VOM emission limitation by August

31,

1986.

Nash shall

comply with all applicable

rules of

the Illinois

Pollution Control Board,

including, but not limited

to,

35 Ill.

Adni.

Code 201.142,

in satisfying

this variance

condition.

65-33

---

—6—

D.

Within forty—five

(45) days after

the date of the Boar~

Order

the Petitioner shall execute and send to

Mr.

Joseph

R.

Podlewski,

Jr.,

Enforcement Attorney,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200

Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706

a certification of acceptance of

this variance by which

it agrees

to be bound by its terms

and conditions.

This forty—five

(45)

day period

shall be held

in

abeyance for any period which

this matter

is appealed.

The form of the certificaiton shall be as

follows:

CERTIFICATION

Nash Brothers Company hereby accepts and agrees

to be bound

by all terms

and conditions of the Order

of the Pollution Control

Board

in PCB 84—182 dated ________________________,

1985.

MASH BROTHERS COMPANY

“By~: Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member

B.

Forcade concurred.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

jfV~

day of

_______________,

1985,

byavoteof

___________

/

Dorothy M. 1Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

65-34